quote:I do not believe such a statement was ever issued, and I'm willing to bet that you can't find a copy of it. Call it a hunch.

In this case, no. I got the link through the Diamanda Galas mailing list about four computers ago, and I don't save my email when I get a new computer. Even if I had them, I wouldn't wade through all those emails (the list was at something like 10-20 mails a day at that time, and I don't even know which year it was.

Believe it or not, it's not relevant if you believe it, as I described why I choose to say what I said. What is relevant is what I've read.

"According to the Turkish newspaper, Peres said that Israel should not take an historical or philosophical position on the Armenian issue, but added: “If we have to determine a position, it should be done with great care so as not to distort the historical realities.”

Furthermore, Peres was quoted as saying:

We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenians went through, but not a genocide.

Israel, as we have shown, had been systematically avoiding the Armenian issue. Now the Foreign Minister joined the deniers on behalf of the Israeli government. This was not The Holocaust (with capital H), this was not a holocaust or even a genocide, claimed the minister. What is it but an Israeli escalation from passive to active denial from moderate denial to hard-line denial? Imagine the Israeli and Jewish reaction to a similar claim by another country’s Foreign Minister, regarding the Holocaust. What would be their reaction if the Holocaust had been called a “tragedy”?"

This is from a page that ends with:

"The Holocaust is firmly recognized by the world, and the State of Israel is sufficiently strong and self-assured to recognize the Armenian Genocide. We can do it now and we need to do it now. We need to do it as human beings, as Jews and as Israelis."

In other words you can't even believably claim that it's anti-israeli propaganda.

The equivalent to utrikesdepartementet/utenriksdepartementet is the US Department of State.

quote:Originally posted by Troberg:

quote:Once again, I'm willing to believe that Troberg did not mean to cause offence, but I need him to tell me that. Which he won't.

Make no mistake about it, I meant to offend as much as I could, but the offence was directed at Bodström, not the Jews. It usually works that way, when you compare two persons, it's offending to the least bad of the two.

IMO it works both ways in this case. I would be extremely offended if I was Bodström, because what has happened was questionable, to say the least, but not even remotely comparable to murdering several million people and your shirt is implying that he's capable of that. Which is probably what you're going for.

I would also be (and am) offended as a Jew because, as several posters have pointed out, you're saying that the Shoah wasn't any worse than shutting down a website.
Posts: 1201 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |

The reports from the raid has now reached the internet. I've not managed to get hold of them yet due to database problems, but according to those who have, they make it clear that the police knew exactly which servers belonged to The Pirate Bay, yet seized all of them.

The web host is preparing for a class action suit against the government, representing all the affected clients who wish to be part of it. It can be expected that some clients wish to run their own process.

One, more and more laws are made to prevent free creativity and sharing on the internet. This would probably mean the death of the internet as we know it, turning it into a network of commercial sites delivering “services” for download, with no interaction, no horizontal exchange.

Two, law-makers realise that in the essence of this debate lies fundamental questions such as the right to free speech and democracy in the modern, technological age - that due to the way digital information is constructed, there is no way to prevent digital sharing in any way except through limiting people’s freedom."

"If you look at the net and the reasoning around digital publication that you find among the grass roots of the pirate movement, you soon notice that there are thoughts worthy of inclusion in the finer circles.These are people who know what they are talking about and can explain differences and similarities between Gutenberg's printing press and the RAM and ROM of computers. They are not just a bunch of kids who want to get as much free music as possible, they have a technological and futuristic competence that ought to be utilized.

Yes, the file sharers deserve a debate where they don't have to meet only the obvious arguments of the opposition."

posted 06. June 200607:44 AM
"One has to understand that internet and mobile phones is the forum of cowards."

Way to win sympathy, there, buddy. Much of the world now spends a significant portion of its time on the internet nowadays. I guess we're all cowards. Better that we just send out out printed-out memos and hide up in our offices, rather than put ourselves out there on public forums for open discussion. Yep, that's cowardice right there, open discussion on web forums. :/

quote:Two, law-makers realise that in the essence of this debate lies fundamental questions such as the right to free speech and democracy in the modern, technological age - that due to the way digital information is constructed, there is no way to prevent digital sharing in any way except through limiting people’s freedom."

Funny how he is framing this debate in terms of democracy and freedom of speech, but neglecting the right of people to control their own property. All laws are limitations of people's freedom. The fact that I cannot walk into a store and steal a computer program is a limit to my freedom. Somehow when we do it online, it becomes an issue of freedom of speech.

quote:Yes, the file sharers deserve a debate where they don't have to meet only the obvious arguments of the opposition

I agree, but taking on the obvious arguments might be a good place to start.

posted 06. June 200611:13 AM
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not this seizure was proper and lawful, and there are certainly arguments either way, the question is whether or not The Pirate Bay's activities are illegal under Swedish Law. My understanding of Swedish Law is that 1) They do not distinguish between copyright infringement for personal and commercial use, and 2)Copyright infringement of any kind is a crime, and accessories and abetment to it is ergo criminal, under the general rules on assisting criminal behaviour. (Brottsbalken 23:4)

Troberg's argument that these activities have been found to be legal in Sweden is, you'll be surprised to hear, an exaggeration. (I know. I'm shocked as well. I feel so let down.)

What is true is that, in the only really comparable case of this type in Sweden,(NJA 1996 s. 79, which related to two BBS users downloading files) the Swedish prosecutor did not initially press charges for copyright against the sysop of the BBS, and were not able to do so once the trial commenced, under Swedish trial law.*

No Swedish court has ever ruled that the activities of organisations such as The Pirate Bay do not contravene the law. This will be the test case, really, and it will be a difficult case for an organisation that openly boasts about its activities, posts scornful responses to cease and desist orders online, and calls itself The Pirate Bay to argue that they are not knowingly facilitating something which is an offence under Swedish Law. I wish them luck, though.

Oh, and one more thing. It's nothing like the Nazis. And I have found no evidence of malign Jewish involvement.

--------------------This wrinkle in time, I can't give it no credit, I thought about my space and it really got me down.Got me so down, I got me a headache, My heart is crammed in my cranium and it still knows how to poundPosts: 2794 | From: London, UK | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |

quote:Funny how he is framing this debate in terms of democracy and freedom of speech, but neglecting the right of people to control their own property.

There are ways to keep content free while retaining control over it. The GPL license does a nice job of that. You can even sell your work under that license.

quote:calls itself The Pirate Bay

The name means nothing under Swedish law. They could have named it "Eff hamsters outside a classroom while screaming 'Tell me you want more cock!'-bay" if they wanted to, as long as the content is legal.

quote:Troberg's argument that these activities have been found to be legal in Sweden is, you'll be surprised to hear, an exaggeration.

There was the incident with the photoshopped images of the royal family mentioned earlier in this thread. Granted, it has little to do with copyright, but it showed that you are not responsible for what your links points to or how the linked content appears to the end user.

I will not try to translate that, as my English legalese is not good enough to provide a meaningful translation. Basically, it details what constitutes a crime against the copyright, which boils down to the actual manufacturing, public performance or transmission.

The Pirate Bay has done neither. The closest analogy is that they have built a stage where they allow others to perform unsupervised. (Perhaps that's why our speaker's corner was torn down...)

quote:posts scornful responses to cease and desist orders online

Frankly, when they recieve letters threatening them with foreign laws which does not apply in Sweden, a response that exposes the idiocy in those threats is perfectly reasonable.

If they are smart, they'll point out that less than half of their torrents are actually copyrighted material. Some artists use Pirate Bay to reach an audience. Linux distributions. Open source. Online newspapers. Game mods. Amateur porn. Amateur movie projects. Stuff that's so old that it's past copyright, like books from Project Gutenberg. Bittorrent is an excellent protocol in that it requires very little bandwidth for the person with the original file. An amateur movie maker have no way of paying for the bandwidth needed to host his movie through older protocols like HTTP or FTP, but with Bittorrent the load is shared by everyone who downloads it. Ideally, the source would only have to upload his movie once.

I wonder how much compensation shareware developers who publish their software through The Pirate Bay will be able to get? They lose money every hour the site is down as their customers will not reach their software.

However, we once again forget what's important. The police did not only shut down one server. They shut down some 200 servers. We can't discuss the issue as if only one server is important. In fact, it's minor compared to the deliberate shutdown of Piratbyrån, the site that criticized Russian politics in Chechnya and several other sites for political opinions. These shutdowns are the big crimes, even more so in an election year. If the discussion had focused more on those sites, we would have a Swedish Watergate.

posted 07. June 200604:16 PM
Ok, it was a rough ride through this thread, but I made it.

Some things I read were... well.... strange.

So Troberg had a T-Shirt comparing Eichman to Bodström.It might not be good taste to do so, but I have seen Americans with pictures of Bush wearing a little mustache (I am not talking about Charlie Chaplin here)

Of course the slogan can be seen as belitteling the Holocaust (if you want to see it that way), but to me it is more of an out-of-proportion demonizing of Bodström.

I can see how the "final solution" term could have brought up the slogan on Troberg's T-Shirt, but I would probably have chosen something with Goebbels, the Minister for Propaganda, since he was the person starting the burning of books in Germany in 1933.And the actions by Bodström and the swedish police would be more in that league.My slogan probably would have been "Bodström is to the internet what Goebbles is to books" or something like that.

In my youth I went to demonstrations as well with very provoking slogans on T-Shirts or bedsheets.These kind of slogans are meant to hurt the person they are aimed against. (In this case Bodström). Was it belitteling the Holocaust? In my eyes the answer is "no", since it was aimed at Bodström. Did it overshoot the mark? I would say "yes", since what Bodström did does not compare to killing people (see above what I would compare it to).

You don't have to agree with Troberg's political views, but you should respect his right to have his own views.

Although I have to admit one thing: Troberg sometimes has a sense of humour that is a wee bit strange/weird but if it doesn't match your taste just read past it.

I am sorry for my probably bad wording and grammatics in this post (and the length, I am lacking the skills to write my thoughts in english and to keep it short at the same time).

There will always be posts in the Snopes-Boards (and in every other board I visit) that I do not agree with. But there always are posts from the same person that I agree with or at least can accept as their point of view. I don't hold a grudge against any poster for posts that I don't like. And I have nice discussions with people that I wouldn't want to talk to in other threads.